ArticleBMJ open2026
Environmental impact of total hip replacements: a life cycle assessment study.
Article in BMJ open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesHealthcare contributes considerably to greenhouse gas emissions, particularly from operating theatres. The global demand for total hip replacements (THR) is rising, highlighting the need to understand its impact on the environment. The study aims to assess the environmental impact of THRs using life cycle assessment (LCA) and to identify key contributors.
designA process-based LCA focusing on the surgical procedure was conducted in accordance with global standards (ISO 14040:2006 and ISO 14044:2006). Eleven sensitivity scenarios were performed to assess the robustness of the results.
settingA Danish University Hospital.
participantsThe empirical data involved the quantity and type of surgical equipment, material composition, energy usage and clinical infrastructure. There were no study participants.
interventionsNo study interventions were performed. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: 18 environmental impact scores, such as global warming, human toxicity and water consumption, were assessed.
resultsThe carbon footprint of a THR was 62.0 kg CO
conclusionTHRs impose a substantial environmental burden, and sustainable solutions should focus on the primary drivers of this impact: disposable utensils, implants and the sterilisation process. In contrast, clinical infrastructure and non-disposable utensils appear to have a relatively minimal environmental impact.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.